The principle of bias and its application in administrative decisions, particularly in the context of teacher-student and supervisor-research scholar relationships, must be carefully examined to differentiate between genuine and fanciful complaints of bias.

Hasnain Massodi, J.:-

1. State Public Commission vide advertisement notice No. 42-PSC(DR-P) dated 29.06.2012 invited applications from eligible candidates, amongst others for the post of Lecturer Ophthalmology in Government Medical College Srinagar. The applications were to be submitted by 30.7.2012. On receipt of revised break up of the post available in Government Medical Colleges Jammu and Srinagar vide No. 46-PSC (DR-P) of 2012 dated 01.08.2012, the date of receipt of the applications was extended to 20.08.2012. Petitioner and Dr. Asif Amin Vakil - respondent No. 5 herein, applied for the advertised post. Both were found eligible and allowed to participate in selection process.

2. The Commission on conclusion of selection process notified select list vide notification No. 36-PSC (DR-S) of 2013 dated 10.9.2013. Petitioner did not find place in the select list. However, respondent No. 5 was included in the select list. Petitioner was shown to have secured 69 points as against 74.75 points secured by the respondent No. 5.

3. Aggrieved with her non selection, petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No. 1 requesting for review of selection of respondent No. 5 and for her selection against the advertised posts. It was urged that respondents 6 & 7 previously acted as teacher and guide to respondent No. 5 and therefore were favorably disposed towards him. Her representation did not find any response from the respondent No. 1, constraining her to file writ petition on hand.

4. Petitioner on the strength of averments made in the petition seeks following relief:

i) Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned merit list/selection list issued by respondent No. 04 in terms of notification No. 36-PSC(DR-S) of 2013 dated 10.09.2013, to the extent it relates to respondent No. 05.

ii) Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing.

a) respondent No. 4 to forward the name of the petitioner to respondent No. 1 for appointing her against the post of Lecturer Ophthalmology in GMC Srinagar.

b) respondent No. 1 & 2 to issue orders of appointment against the post of Lecturer Ophthalmology, in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the recommendations so made by respondent No. 04.

c) respondent No. 3 to relieve her from the post of Assistant Surgeon so as to enable her to join against the post of Lecturer Ophthalmology.

5. Respondents in their separate replies deny that respondents 6 & 7 were favourably disposed towards petitioner. It is stated that in all 17 candidates responded to the advertisement notice and 16 candidates out of the aspirants were found eligible for the advertised posts and that all the 16 eligible candidates were allowed to participate in the selection process. It is pointed out that Selection Committee comprised of Chairman and one of the members of the Commission and respondents 6 & 7 were associated with the committee as experts. In absence of any specific averments pleaded to establish malafidies, the selection process according to the respondents cannot be vitiated or termed as arbitrary.

6. The apprehensions nursed by petitioner as regards favour shown by the respondents 6 & 7 towards respondent No. 5, according to respondents, is imaginary and devoid of any substance. It is pleaded that only because respondents 6 & 7 were at one or other time involved in education or training of respondent No. 5, is not to lead to the conclusion that respondents 6 & 7 must have acted in an biased manner or indulged in favouritism. It is denied that respondents 6 & 7 had any personal or pecuniary interest in selection of respondent No. 5. Respondents insist that the respondents 6 & 7 merely because they taught respondent No. 5 or acted as his guide in post graduation course, would not disentitle them from being on the panel of experts associated with the selection process. The marks secured by the respondent No. 5 in viva - voce, it is pleaded, mus